Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

The "Inadvertent Whistle'

Can anyone explain the inadvertent whistle? Watching the Pitt Denver game, you'd think that any inadvertent whistle would stop play, can't recover fumble etc. However, if you watched the Detroit NO game, there was and inadvertent whistle, yet Detroit was able to keep the ball. Why the difference?

Re: The "Inadvertent Whistle'

Originally Posted by blah3

Can anyone explain the inadvertent whistle? Watching the Pitt Denver game, you'd think that any inadvertent whistle would stop play, can't recover fumble etc. However, if you watched the Detroit NO game, there was and inadvertent whistle, yet Detroit was able to keep the ball. Why the difference?

Because they blew the call twice on that play.

Once the whistle blew in the Lions game, by rule, the Saints should have been allowed to retain possession.

Re: The "Inadvertent Whistle'

Originally Posted by Dade

So the rule was enforced correctly when it benefited the Steelers.

Except that the officials made it up on the field. They said Denver dropped the challenge because the whistle blew when the ball hit the ground, so the play was dead at that point. That's bogus. Listen to it. The whistle didn't blow until Dumerville was on top of the ball.

Re: The "Inadvertent Whistle'

Originally Posted by alien bird

Listen to it. The whistle didn't blow until Dumerville was on top of the ball.

I can't remember where I read it, or heard it, but it was stated that when officials review a call in the replay booth, it is without sound, and that the league needs to start seriously thinking about presenting the sound and well as the replay so that the officials can see and hear the full play.

Re: The "Inadvertent Whistle'

Originally Posted by blah3

Well then it seems that would top the list of my new what rules should the NFL change. Detroit and Denver got screwed on those plays.

I think allowing challenges/reversals after the whistle had blown opens up a big can of "what if" worms. When you have situations like this, some guys keep fighting for the ball whistle or not, while other guys immediately stop, assuming the play is over. To reverse a call, you'd have to assume that it would have played out the same way if all 22 guys were aware that the play was still going on. Considering that today's refs can barely get the black and white rules correct, adding yet another grey area to the rulebook doesn't seem like the best idea to me.

The league has already told officials to delay blowing the whistle and let the play finish, specifically to avoid cases like this (the same thing happened a couple years ago with Hochuli blowing a play dead early, in Denver no less). What the league needs to do is re-emphasize that, and discipline officials if they continue to blow plays dead early. But you can't coach players from pop warner up to "play til the whistle", and now tell them that they need to play through and after the whistle, just in case. Allowing refs to go back and change those calls is just going to lead to more controversies.

Re: The "Inadvertent Whistle'

They just need to teach the referees to not be so quick with the whistle, unless the result of the play is as clear as can be, given the circumstances.

I highly doubt that the league would try to screw over the New Orleans Saints, given the season that Drew Brees is having.

"When questioned, the Elders explained that they were in search of magical powers. However, they're actually searching for the whereabouts of a certain ring. This ring is a legendary treasure that long ago was known to exist"